141–150 of 251 posts
Just write your own libraries, no one is stopping you.
Also, it looks like this person doesn't even write C++ professionally. Looks like that's the problem. C++ is a practical language for practical people solving practical problems, not for idealists.
> A lack of default arguments, a lack of basic arity overloading, a lack of variadic generics, all make me not want to write Rust. I'm not sure how serious this is, TBH? I mean, Rust does have macro syntax that supports all of these things (as seen e.g. in println!() and format!() ), and there are pretty solid engineering reasons to avoid those features within the basic workings of the language. I'm pretty sure most…
> Despite using golang, working with the absolute impenetrable monster that is kubernetes, taking on a helpdesk like on-call experience for one week at a time tending to configuration files over code, and not touching C++ at all, I feel more rewarded in my work than I ever did writing any amount of C++ in my entire life.
I actually experienced the same in the last couple of years. Doing ops work, and sometimes really tiny code changes which still help to improve a product and get recognized by people can feel really rewarding. Standardization work or any kind programming language / library development sometimes not that much (and that is independent of C++).
I think the reason for this is that in ops/support/etc environment one is working towards a known goal, which is well understood by people (peers, customers). If the goal has been reached everyone is happy, and one will likely get positive feedback. And even on the road towards the goal people will understand why it's important to get something done and help to get to the goal. E.g. code changes might not have to be perfect in order to get merged, and there might not be an extreme amount of bikeshedding.
Working on fundamentals can be different: In a setting like a standard library working group often a variety of people come together which do not share the same goal, and where goals are also not necessarily "customer driven". Instead of that, people more often have their personal goals they want to achieve, and they have their own set of motivations for it. This makes it harder to get buy-in from others. Goals are also not that quantifieable (like "fix a crash" or "improve latency by 10ms"), which makes it additionally harder to argument why something is important or less important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine needing to announce your "departure" from a community. The exact same thing jumped out at me. Does anyone know if the author is a particularly well known or influential member of the C++ community?
Contributing to the spec, creating a very widely used set of CMake utilities, and being a widely enjoyed speaker not enough for you? With the condescending airquotes and demeaning comment, one might think you had done some research. Clearly you hadn't. A Google search can tell you all of this.
No, this is clearly not enough to get shit accepted into the C++ standard. As evident by the fact that none of OP's ideas made it into the standard. Why should any of that matter?
I'm sure OP is not alone here, by the way. I submit there must be thousands of amazing ideas proposed by amazing people that don't end up being accepted into the standard for a myriad of reasons. Get over it.
FYI: the author is named Isabella and AFAICT uses female pronouns. In light of that, the amount of "he" and "him" in the comments so far seems a bit excessive. EDIT: it looks like a lot of those comments have been cleaned up or deleted since I first made this comment. Thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personality disorders have been treated with therapy in many cases. What is the main reason for a label: to get the right treatment. People will never be "normal", but they can live in and deal with society, something they would have failed with even 30 years ago.
Come on now, you can't really believe that someone who "just couldn’t let something go because it was wrong or incorrect and it bothered" them - would have failed to live in and deal with society 30 years ago.
Obvious she is getting out, but it is highly likely with some help she could function a lot better.
It must be frustrating to propose a bunch of ideas, cultivate and advocate for them, only to never see them acknowledged or accepted by the standards committee over the course of years. That being said - let's get real about this. Simply coming up with a bunch of ideas for improvements is not enough. Neither is being vocal about it on Twitter, or giving talks at a convention. Gaining the community's support and ackno…
People on the committee are not sufficiently good to just accept a proposition based on technical merit alone. The whole thing needs to be made accessible and easy to digest, and preferably integrate well in what others want to do.
It's political work, which is tedious and frustrating. Some people are good at this (especially if they can figure out a way to integrate that into their career), but for most people, it's just a waste of time and effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there any non-proprietary Ada/SPARK implementation? Yes, it's now available as part of GNAT. The integration in GNAT Studio is good and lets you prove a single line or entire file in the IDE. I mostly write Ada for my projects and have only dabbled in SPARK. It's super interesting, but also ridiculously hard. I don't have any formal training in this, but to me, I found it at least as on par with C++ template met…
Ah, thanks. I guess this is also available with the command line tools? (I'm thinking for CI purposes.)
The dialogs for builds/proofs even show the exact command line that's going to be used, and updates as you configure it in the editor dialog. It's a great way to learn how the GNAT tools actually work.
Makes me wonder if I've too strongly tied my career to a specific language. However, right now it's not that I'm specifically a C++ programmer, just that the industry (gamedev) is largely C++. I'm sure in for it if that shifts out from under me before I find stable employment though....
> A lack of default arguments, a lack of basic arity overloading, a lack of variadic generics, all make me not want to write Rust. I'm not sure how serious this is, TBH? I mean, Rust does have macro syntax that supports all of these things (as seen e.g. in println!() and format!() ), and there are pretty solid engineering reasons to avoid those features within the basic workings of the language. I'm pretty sure most…
Why do you think Rust not supporting variadic generics is the right thing?